If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Why choose MS XP Embedded over Linux Embedded

For example, [on Linux] there are at least five different window managers and at least four competing browsers, increasing programming complexity and reducing the pool of available developers.

There is no common integrated development environment (IDE) for Linux. operating system development is command-line driven and applications development requires a new set of tools for each device. Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly tool set.

Linux is a follower, not an innovator

Linux offers does not offer an Internet browser that is equivalent to the features in Internet Explorer 6.0.

1: five diff. window managers means there's variety and a plethora of choices inside each one, allowing the user to customize to his/her heart's content. Also, these managers are vastly more efficient in resource usage rather than 'explorer.exe' which takes nothing to tip over and since programs are independent to the manager, the chances for cascade faults are 1000% less (as in, I've never seen a browser dying cause the kernel to panic).

2: development using different tools that are smaller in overall size and more efficient in their use. Almost every developer that writes c/c++ code will tell you that GCC is the status quo for compilers. Perl is used daily for log manipulation, cgi scripts, and many more. GTK creates nice frontends for programs, etc etc. As far as 'standard IDE', does MS mean to say that WIN32 is a 'standard IDE' meaning you have to conform to their rules and such for creation of 'integrated programs'? I'm guessing that because you're not using their 2000 buck Visual Studio Enterprise and using something free and actually making something good with it, they're pissed off.
Development in linux is way better than MS. Sure you don't see games and whatnot being ported enough but considering that I can actually FIX a problem in a program if I see one, instead of 'relying' on MS for a 'patch', that makes it better for me.

3: Linux is a follower and not an innovator, eh? Let's see here, MS...Win XP is larger than 2000 is larger than Win 98 SE is larger than Win95...I'm seeing a pattern here. Linux was made to run on anything from an absolute CLUNKER that could NEVER EVER run even win95 to super computers like the one HP just got built. Linux has innovated in many areas where MS has relied on the good old 'security through obscurity' and 'buy them out, integrate it for free, put it inside IE, etc' stuff. MS is innovative? Please, give me a freaking break. You could find someone else having done their work well beforehand and then either being bought out and absolved or destroyed through 'less friendly' tactics. MS isn't innovative in the slightest.

4: Linux doesn't offer a browser as 'feature rich' as IE6 eh? Well let's see here. Any site that FORCES me to open IE6 just to VIEW it properly tells me that they built it with something like FP, or uses proprietary 'viewed only best...no way, viewed only by IE' ASP pages, etc etc. IE6 uses SHITLOADS of non-standardized 'glitzy' features such as rollovers, drop down menus, you name is. They don't even display CSS correctly. Opera, on the other hand, for both Windows and Linux, is 100% standards compliant. So is Mozilla. Be afraid of these two, MS, be very afraid...because users eventually will get tired of being misled with the whole IE thing and demand that a product be secure and less faulty. Opera is my choice and IE only does one thing...updates the OS ONCE and then I block it forever on the firewall.

Sit down and try again, MS people...people want a CHOICE and they're starting to see that your products aren't secure, aren't efficient, and overall don't allow them to do what they want.

We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.

1: five diff. window managers means there's variety and a plethora of choices inside each one, allowing the user to customize to his/her heart's content. Also, these managers are vastly more efficient in resource usage rather than 'explorer.exe' which takes nothing to tip over and since programs are independent to the manager, the chances for cascade faults are 1000% less (as in, I've never seen a browser dying cause the kernel to panic).

2: development using different tools that are smaller in overall size and more efficient in their use. Almost every developer that writes c/c++ code will tell you that GCC is the status quo for compilers. Perl is used daily for log manipulation, cgi scripts, and many more. GTK creates nice frontends for programs, etc etc. As far as 'standard IDE', does MS mean to say that WIN32 is a 'standard IDE' meaning you have to conform to their rules and such for creation of 'integrated programs'? I'm guessing that because you're not using their 2000 buck Visual Studio Enterprise and using something free and actually making something good with it, they're pissed off.
Development in linux is way better than MS. Sure you don't see games and whatnot being ported enough but considering that I can actually FIX a problem in a program if I see one, instead of 'relying' on MS for a 'patch', that makes it better for me.

3: Linux is a follower and not an innovator, eh? Let's see here, MS...Win XP is larger than 2000 is larger than Win 98 SE is larger than Win95...I'm seeing a pattern here. Linux was made to run on anything from an absolute CLUNKER that could NEVER EVER run even win95 to super computers like the one HP just got built. Linux has innovated in many areas where MS has relied on the good old 'security through obscurity' and 'buy them out, integrate it for free, put it inside IE, etc' stuff. MS is innovative? Please, give me a freaking break. You could find someone else having done their work well beforehand and then either being bought out and absolved or destroyed through 'less friendly' tactics. MS isn't innovative in the slightest.

4: Linux doesn't offer a browser as 'feature rich' as IE6 eh? Well let's see here. Any site that FORCES me to open IE6 just to VIEW it properly tells me that they built it with something like FP, or uses proprietary 'viewed only best...no way, viewed only by IE' ASP pages, etc etc. IE6 uses SHITLOADS of non-standardized 'glitzy' features such as rollovers, drop down menus, you name is. They don't even display CSS correctly. Opera, on the other hand, for both Windows and Linux, is 100% standards compliant. So is Mozilla. Be afraid of these two, MS, be very afraid...because users eventually will get tired of being misled with the whole IE thing and demand that a product be secure and less faulty. Opera is my choice and IE only does one thing...updates the OS ONCE and then I block it forever on the firewall.

Sit down and try again, MS people...people want a CHOICE and they're starting to see that your products aren't secure, aren't efficient, and overall don't allow them to do what they want.

We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.